The Poles on the fronts [Archive] - WW2 in Color History Forum

Chevan

10-25-2007, 04:42 AM

Poles from LWP landed on the West bank by night of September 15-16th. It was already too late, because the Nazis were controlling almost all of the city and AK was in agony.
The attack on the west bank turned out to be failure. After 8 days the so-called Czerniakow Beachhead had been closed.

true mate.
But in the September the GErmans had NO more troops that in the mid of August.
COz in the right after BErginning of the Iprising immediately germans send to the Warsaw additional 4 SS Panzer Corp ( very strong) besides the western-bank of Vistula fortifications did not let the Red Army to march into the Praga in aug of 1944.
In the early summer of 1944, German planning required Warsaw to serve as the defensive centre of the area and to be held at all costs. The Germans had fortifications constructed and built up their forces in the area. This process slowed after the failed July 20 Plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler, but by late July 1944, German forces had almost reached their full strength again.
So the Soviets INEVITABLY would suffer much during the attack of Warsaw.

Yes, but they emphasized only the Polish People's Army.
Have you ever watched in USSR and Russia any movie or document about Polish Armed Forces in the West?
I don't think so.

True , but you my friend forgetting that the West aslo insulting called the "Polish People army as a pro-communist pupet army" that partisipated in the communits action's after the WW2.
The West also emphasized only the activity of Polish forses in the Western armies.
And have you watched the any objective western movie about AL during the Cold War?
I do not think so too.

Nevertheless, I absolutely respect the heroism and courage of all who fought in PPA in the East. These guys were the salt of the earth. They were caught by Russians in 1939, were held in prisons, then sent to the Far East, and then came back to the front and fought with the Germans. Hats off...

Agree absolutly.

Kovalski

10-25-2007, 06:51 AM

So the Soviets INEVITABLY would suffer much during the attack of Warsaw.

I totally agree. I wouldn't be a milk run at all.

True , but you my friend forgetting that the West aslo insulting called the "Polish People army as a pro-communist pupet army" that partisipated in the communits action's after the WW2.

Hmm, that is questionable. I assume that Western politician and comentators were are of PPA past, I mean they had to known that ordinary soldiers went through the Soviet prisons, camp etc. It was widely known that joining PPA was the only chance to survive and come back to homeland, especially when gen. Anders's army left to Iran.

But when speaking about officers and high command...
For example, the commander of polish troops in the East who sent PPA to Czerniakow Beachhead. (Gen. Berling), avoided being sent to Katyn just because he declared the will to cooperate with NKVD and Red Army. In other case - it is easy to guess.
There were also true communists among PPA hig ranks, no doubt about it.
So calling the whole army "pro-communist puppet army" is an exaggeration.
I assume it refers to fact that PPA was a foundation of communist polish state.
And let's not forget its role in actions against AK and other organizations.

The West also emphasized only the activity of Polish forses in the Western armies.
And have you watched the any objective western movie about AL during the Cold War?
I do not think so too.

No, because communist Poland had its own movies about "brave" AL :)

Pozdrawiam,
Kovalski

P.S. I found some unconfirmed info about Soviet 226th Rgt 74th Inf, that was sent to Warsaw to help at Czerniakow Beachhead, as it was elite unit with great experience in street-fighting gained at Stalingrad. But they arrived too late, when the situation at the beachhead was hopeless.

Drake

10-25-2007, 06:58 AM

This is so hillarious. The first sentence I read on this site:
"Poland was the only country to fight in the European theatre of war from the first to the last day of the greatest armed conflict in the history of mankind."
already discredited it beyond recovery.

Kovalski

10-25-2007, 08:21 AM

Drake

10-25-2007, 08:45 AM

Jup, it would or something like allied, but I think the the whole sentence is a bit discrediting to GB and even France (god forbid, hehe), though they were technically two days late, but then one could say it was no real WW before they even joined.

1000ydstare

11-04-2007, 06:16 AM

Britian committed due to the German invasion of Poland.

Like you say, it wasn't really a World War until more got involved.

The Poles fought vainly but valliantly, as two armies, vastly superior to their own came at them from both sides.

Not to be outdone by the loss of their country many Poles chose to fight on. Statistically more Poles fought on after defeat than French. Whole squadrons of RAF were flown during the Battle of Britain manned by Poles.

Also, a big contribution was played by the Poles. Even as their country fell, they managed to help a group of British Soldiers of the Royal Signals to smuggle a German Enigma machine (of the Army, not Submarine or Luftwaffe. They were all different) and codes out to Britain. Their contribution in this can not be understated.

Especially when you realise it was only for the Poles that the British escaped with there lives. Kitdidn't work, and agents didn't work properly. The Brits were there to communicate back what was going on, and were installed prior to the declaration of war by the British.

Thanks to them, and the Poles, Britain had an Enigma machine from the off.

Chevan

11-06-2007, 04:57 AM

Britian committed due to the German invasion of Poland.

Like you say, it wasn't really a World War until more got involved.

The Poles fought vainly but valliantly, as two armies, vastly superior to their own came at them from both sides.
.
They fought agains one army ydstare- German army.
They did not even try to fight against the Soviet army that had captured back the Western Ukraine, occuped by Poland since 1921.
Only 17 september when the Polish gov has run away from Poland the Soviets have entered to the Western Ukraine;)
And as far as we know the Polish troops even did not resist for it ( coz Poland de-facto was not existed already).
BTW do not forget please that the Britain and France simply betrayed the Poles.In summer of 1939 they have the agrement to not help the Poles(Although formally they signed the treaty with the Poland to begin the military operation agains Agressor not later then after TWO weeks).
As the resault the naive Poles fought vainly with hope that "West would help them".They even refused the alliance with USSR in august.
BTW the France in 1939 had even more strength then the Germans. If they attacked the Germany when the German army was in Poland- they easy could capture the Germany and finish the Fascism in the most beginning.
However they did nothing.
Well actually why they have to do something?
The Hitlers dreamed about Eastern Lands- he obviously would attack the USSR- so why we need to defend the Poland that is on the way to the Russia?;)
The better choice is to wait , right?
So they were waiting when the poles died, but damn..... the dastard Stalin has broke all the plans:)
And instead the new Crusade to the East in 1939 Fuhrer begin the capturing the Western Europe.
What a nice surprise for the British strategists .

Kovalski

11-06-2007, 05:39 AM

They fought agains one army ydstare- German army.
They did not even try to fight against the Soviet army that had captured back the Western Ukraine, occuped by Poland since 1921.
Only 17 september when the Polish gov has run away from Poland the Soviets have entered to the Western Ukraine;)
And as far as we know the Polish troops even did not resist for it ( coz Poland de-facto was not existed already).

Chevan! Not again!

1. Polish forces received the instruction not to attack Red Army after 17th of September. They were allowed to open fire only in self-defence. And that took place many times on eastern territories of Poland.
2. About the "occupied" Ukraine. Russia was the same kind of invader in Ukraine as Poland was. Don't tell me about "Western Ukraine, occupied by Poland since 1921", because you put yourself in position of the greatest hypocrite of all. Before 1921, Russia was an occupier there. As I told you thousands of times: if you want to dig in the history of Eastern Europe and check who was the first occupier, feel free to do it :) Good luck!
3. About the resisting polish forces...
Look on above.
Regiments of polish Borderland Defence Corps: „Wilejka”, „Podole” i „Sarny” were resisting on thier positions. Battalions: „Ludwikowo”, „Sienkiewicze”, „Dawidgródek” were also fighting on the eastern border. What about the battle of Vilnus? What about the battles of Skidle and Kodziowice? Have you ever heard about polish Borderland Defence Corps unit under command of gen. Wilhelm Orlik-Rückeman, which inflicted heavy loses to Red Army in Battle of Szack and Wytyczno? What about the battle of Grodno?
In fact, several dozen of thousands of polish soldiers fought the Red Army in September 1939. The biggest unit was Independent Operational Group „Polesie”, with 20 thousands soldiers, which fought first with Soviets, and later with Germans.

BTW, some members of my family were in Borderland Defence Corps on the eastern border of Poland. Don't ask me if they ever came back home.

Pozdrawiam,
Kovalski

Drake

11-06-2007, 06:11 AM

Have to agree with Kovalski here, particularly about the occupied and hypocrisy on the soviet/russian side part :).

Chevan

11-06-2007, 06:38 AM

Chevan! Not again!

1. Polish forces received the instruction not to attack Red Army after 17th of September. They were allowed to open fire only in self-defence. And that took place many times on eastern territories of Poland.

And also do not forget my friend that Polish troops was fighting not as much with Red Army as with the Ukraine armed groups of peasants and patrisants in so called "eastern territories of Poland".
In fact after the "Polonisation" of Western Ukraine the local population hated a much of Poles and immediatelly began to attack the polish troops when the Red Army entered to their areas.
Initially the Ukraine population has greeted the Red Army.( but later they fought with them ;))

2. About the "occupied" Ukraine. Russia was the same kind of invader in Ukraine as Poland was. Don't tell me about "Western Ukraine, occupied by Poland since 1921", because you put yourself in position of the greatest hypocrite of all.

That's true mate
After all the Russian ocuped Ukraine. However for the Ukrainian oint in the 1939 the Soviet Ukraine received back its native territories.
And do not be a greates hypocrite to tell us about "Polish easter territories".
It was an only Ukraine;)

Before 1921, Russia was an occupier there. As I told you thousands of times: if you want to dig in the history of Eastern Europe and check who was the first occupier, feel free to do it :) Good luck!

Oh mate this is a great way
In such way we soon would descaver the fact that the it was a Rome impare who was the ONLY ancient occuper of the Europe.;)
AAnd do not forget about Spain with Britain who occupied the America five centuries ago....

3. About the resisting polish forces...
Look on above.
Regiments of polish Borderland Defence Corps: „Wilejka”, „Podole” i „Sarny” were resisting on thier positions. Battalions: „Ludwikowo”, „Sienkiewicze”, „Dawidgródek” were also fighting on the eastern border. What about the battle of Vilnus? What about the battles of Skidle and Kodziowice? Have you ever heard about polish Borderland Defence Corps unit under command of gen. Wilhelm Orlik-Rückeman, which inflicted heavy loses to Red Army in Battle of Szack and Wytyczno? What about the battle of Grodno?
In fact, several dozen of thousands of polish soldiers fought the Red Army in September 1939. The biggest unit was Independent Operational Group „Polesie”, with 20 thousands soldiers, which fought first with Soviets, and later with Germans.
Oh what a great forces has meet the Red Army;)
They could killed 737 soviet soldiers and oficers.
BTW do you know that the ONLY Ukraine armed forces killed much more poles ( about 2500)

BTW, some members of my family were in Borderland Defence Corps on the eastern border of Poland. Don't ask me if they ever came back home.

Oh sorry man i didn't know you had the relatives in here.
However may i ask you why they called the Ukraine as its home?

Drake

11-06-2007, 07:05 AM

In such way we soon would descaver the fact that the it was a Rome impare who was the ONLY ancient occuper of the Europe.;)
AAnd do not forget about Spain with Britain who occupied the America five centuries ago....

Guess we could agree that over the past 2 millenia there was a lot of "occupation" going round in europe, not always was it as bad for the population as occupation sounds. The roman empire for example had a great impact on the cultural development of western europe. The kingdoms and relationships between them shifted more often than can be counted and things like the Völkerwanderung or many many wars contributed much to the ethnic diversity of europe, from which we, like the US today, profited a lot. I think, if europe wasn't so small and diverse, it would have never achieved the leading role in the world in the past 1000 years and have fueled all achievements that lead to the world we know today. A more homogenous european population might have stagnated. The lines we draw on maps are anyway artificial.

Chevan

11-06-2007, 07:15 AM

Have to agree with Kovalski here, particularly about the occupied and hypocrisy on the soviet/russian side part :).
Drake there is no Soviet/ Russian side.
The Soviet side is rather differ from Russian;)
The soviet class strugle approach has nothing common with the contemporary point of many nations in this area.But this is not mean that ONLY polish side is right;)

Kovalski

11-06-2007, 07:26 AM

And also do not forget my friend that Polish troops was fighting not as much with Red Army as with the Ukraine armed groups of peasants and patrisants in so called "eastern territories of Poland".

Honestly speaking, never heard of that. Sounds interesting. Do you have some article about that?

And do not be a greates hypocrite to tell us about "Polish easter territories".
It was an only Ukraine;)

I used "Polish eastern territories" just to emphasize the fact that these lands officially belonged to Poland in 1939. It doesn't refer to the people who lived there, because I know that Poles were not a majority there.

Oh mate this is a great way
In such way we soon would descaver the fact that the it was a Rome impare who was the ONLY ancient occuper of the Europe.;)
AAnd do not forget about Spain with Britain who occupied the America five centuries ago....

That's why I prefer not to dig so deep. It is pointless.

Oh what a great forces has meet the Red Army;)
They could killed 737 soviet soldiers and oficers.

There are 2 calculations:
http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter4_7.html
http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov2/04.html

737 or 1173 Soviet killed in action.

Not much as for 13 days of war.
But when we recall that Poles were ordered to act only in self-defence (that means they were not allowed to attack any Soviet unit on their own initiative). There were only 25 battalions of BDC on eastern border, they had to face about 466516 Soviet troops (according to one of the sources) supported with thousands of tanks and planes.

Interesting fact is that about half of soviet losses were inflicted by polish troops during the battle of Szack on 28th of September.
And guess what... Poles were attacking. Soviet 52nd Infantry Div. lost about 500 KIA and 1600 WIA.
Just one offensive action of polish forces.
So I were you, I wouldn't laugh so loud.

Oh sorry man i didn't knoe you had the relatives in here.
However may i ask you whay they called the Ukraine as its home?

No problem.
They stationed somewhere close to lithuanian border. I assume they called home the place where they were born. They were polish.

pozdrawiam,
Kovalski

Chevan

11-06-2007, 08:26 AM

737 or 1173 Soviet killed in action.

Not much as for 13 days of war.
But when we recall that Poles were ordered to act only in self-defence (that means they were not allowed to attack any Soviet unit on their own initiative). There were only 25 battalions of BDC on eastern border, they had to face about 466516 Soviet troops (according to one of the sources) supported with thousands of tanks and planes.

Interesting fact is that about half of soviet losses were inflicted by polish troops during the battle of Szack on 28th of September.
And guess what... Poles were attacking. Soviet 52nd Infantry Div. lost about 500 KIA and 1600 WIA.
Just one offensive action of polish forces.
So I were you, I wouldn't laugh so loud.

I/m not laughing mate.
I never doubt the poles could fight effectively ( especially under professional leadership).
I just want to notice you the simple fact that from about 250 000 of polish soldiers who were captured by the Red Army resisted only 20 000 ( as you wrote) i.e. less them 10%.
This fact proves that the Resistence were episodical- the Poles did not fight with the Red Army as they fight with Germans ( and we know why - the special order of Polish command)
This fact just prove the very importain thing- the Poles themself did not consider the Estarn territories as the their native territories that worthwhile to defend.
This was an alien land- where the native population were mostly anti-polish.
Therefore they did not want to fight with Soviets.

1000ydstare

11-06-2007, 01:16 PM

Kovalski

11-06-2007, 01:54 PM

I/m not laughing mate.
I never doubt the poles could fight effectively ( especially under professional leadership).
I just want to notice you the simple fact that from about 250 000 of polish soldiers who were captured by the Red Army resisted only 20 000 ( as you wrote) i.e. less them 10%.

I cannot agree. The number of polish soldiers who fought against Red Army is unknown. Polish historians give a very wide numbers: from 10 to several dozens of thousands.

This fact proves that the Resistence were episodical- the Poles did not fight with the Red Army as they fight with Germans ( and we know why - the special order of Polish command)
This fact just prove the very importain thing- the Poles themself did not consider the Estarn territories as the their native territories that worthwhile to defend.

Forgive mate, but where the logic connection between the order and the attitude of polish soldiers toward the eastern provinces of Poland???
Your conclusion is not an exaggeration, its huge logical mistake.
If polish didn't consider these land as their homeland, they wouldn't had put 25 battalions at the border.
For God's sake Chevan, where do you take these ideas from? :)
[/QUOTE]

Drake

11-06-2007, 02:34 PM

Kovalski

11-06-2007, 06:00 PM

I'm not an expert, but as far as I remember Poles expected allied assault on french-german border, generally in Western Europe.

1000ydstare

11-07-2007, 01:04 AM

Which would have achieved?

The forces that went East, stayed in the East.

France, Belgium and Holland (not to mention the British Expedidtionary Force) was smashed up by a completely different set of Armies. Some of whom stayed, some of whom then went East.

Maybe, this attack didn't matierialise due to the fact it would have been suicide?

Drake

11-07-2007, 04:02 AM

I'm not an expert, but as far as I remember Poles expected allied assault on french-german border, generally in Western Europe.

That's precisely my point, how could they expect that? Were they promised something like it or were they just so foolish to see something that wasn't there.

Egorka

11-07-2007, 06:28 AM

That's precisely my point, how could they expect that? Were they promised something like it or were they just so foolish to see something that wasn't there.

They were indeed firmly promised that and the Polish goverment, unfortunately, mistakenly trusted it almost foolishly.

The attack was promissed on the 15th day after the start of full scale mobilisation. The full scale mobilisation in France was declared on the 1st of September. 1+15=16 of September.

But on app. 12th of September UK and France agreed not to do any sizeable land operation regardless of how long Poland would hold. I think Kovalski can bring light on this issue.

Read this one. Looking back it sounds like big pile of crap... but, hey, it is not crap - it is just politics!
source: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1939/390902a.html
Address by Edouard Daladier, Premier, in the Chamber of Deputies, September 2, 1939.

Gentlemen,

The Government yesterday decreed general mobilization.

.
.
.

I, myself, in the Chamber said, on May 11 last:

"As a result of the journey of the Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs to London and of the reciprocal pledges of guarantee given by Great Britain and Poland, by a common agreement with this noble and brave nation we tool the measures required for the immediate and direct application of our treaty of alliance."

Parliament approved this policy.

Since then we have never failed both in diplomatic negotiations and in public utterances, to prove faithful to it. Our Ambassador in Berlin has several times reminded Herr Hitler that, if a German aggression were to take place against Poland, we should fulfill our pledges. And on July 1, in Paris, the Minister for Foreign Affairs said to the German Ambassador to France:

"France has definite commitments to Poland. These engagements have been further strengthened as a result of the latest events, and consequently France will at once be at Poland's side as soon at Poland herself takes up arms."

and more bla-bla-bla

Egorka

11-07-2007, 06:47 AM

737 or 1173 Soviet killed in action.
Not much as for 13 days of war.
But when we recall that Poles were ordered to act only in self-defence (that means they were not allowed to attack any Soviet unit on their own initiative).

Interesting fact is that about half of soviet losses were inflicted by polish troops during the battle of Szack on 28th of September.
And guess what... Poles were attacking. Soviet 52nd Infantry Div. lost about 500 KIA and 1600 WIA.
Just one offensive action of polish forces.

Kovalski, man, do not tell me that the Polish soldiers disobeyed the orders in Szack!!! ;)

Chevan

11-07-2007, 07:46 AM

I cannot agree. The number of polish soldiers who fought against Red Army is unknown. Polish historians give a very wide numbers: from 10 to several dozens of thousands.
But the the most of Western historians gives us a very relatively small figure of soviet soldiers killed by the Poles as well as the Soviet historians tells that in most case the Red Army did not meet the resistance.
This obviously proved that indeed no more then 10-15% of about 250 000 of polish POWs tryed to resist the Soviets.
Thus the conclusion - poles did not actively fought with Red Army.

Forgive mate, but where the logic connection between the order and the attitude of polish soldiers toward the eastern provinces of Poland???
Your conclusion is not an exaggeration, its huge logical mistake.
If polish didn't consider these land as their homeland, they wouldn't had put 25 battalions at the border.
For God's sake Chevan, where do you take these ideas from? :)

Well mate no problems you know i will always forgive you;)
But excuse me too - how would the polish 25 battalions in the bother die for the Estern Polish lands - meanwhile the native local population hated and kiled them in much more scale then the Red Army?
As i said - if the local population together with Red Army fight agains poles - does it not prove the oobvious fact - the poles were the rough invaiders in there?;)

Chevan

11-07-2007, 08:08 AM

Chevan, the German offensive in to Poland was quick and over, prior to the British being able to do much.

As stated, there WAS a party of some 10-12 men in Poland from the British Army. They would have been sent far in advance of the German Attack, otherwise they wouldn't have got there in time.

Besides which, in 1939 exactly how fast could the British have sent a Brigade or even a Battalion to aid the Polish?
Well i/m actually don't guess how the British Royal fleet and the RAF could help the Poles;)
Sure we know they have no the bombs and shells - they have ONLY enought leaflets:D

Polish-British Common Defence Pact
On August 25th, two days after the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Polish-British Common Defence Pact was signed. The treaty contained promises of mutual military assistance between the nations in the event either was attacked by another European country. The United Kingdom, sensing a dangerous trend of German expansionism, sought to prevent German aggression by this show of solidarity. In a secret protocol of the pact, the United Kingdom only actually offered assistance in the case of an attack on Poland specifically by Germany, though both the United Kingdom and Poland were bound not to enter agreements with any other third countries which were a threat to the other.[

And what could do the 98 French-British infantry divisions on "Maginot line" plus 2500 tanks and 1000+ airsctrafts against the 43 germans divisions without tanks ans aviation at all;)
Sure they could do nothing;)
We all know that is was quite inpossible to fight with GErmans having the 2:1 superiority in infantry and armoured vehicles - were the French so stoopid?;)No...
They would better wait.

Chevan

11-07-2007, 08:24 AM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8f/Poster_Anglio.jpg/300px-Poster_Anglio.jpg
"England , look that you have done"- The Nazy 1939 poster.
The Germans actively rise the anti-british feeling among the polish population in its own political aims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal#The_Phony_War
The problem with Polish expectations was that the French and British commitments greatly exaggerated their capabilities. Although France promptly declared war, the French mobilization was not complete until early October, by which time Poland had fallen. In Britain where mobilization was more rapid, only 1 in 40 men were mobilized (compared to 1 in 10 in France, and 1 in 20 in Poland), thus providing only a token force against Germany's forces of several million. The presumption that "something could have been done but wasn't" overlooks the basic fact that the West, just like Poland, was ill-equipped to fight Germany even with the majority of German forces engaged in the east.
After the war, General Alfred Jodl commented that the Germans survived 1939 "only because approximately 110 French and English divisions in the West, which during the campaign on Poland were facing 25 German divisions, remained completely inactive."

So this is rather wrong to say that the Britain and France had no military power to attack the GErmans- they had aproximatelly 4:1 superiority in the Western front in sept 1939.
thus thay hd all chances to destroy the Reich when the most of Germans Army was in the Poland.
But why they have to do it?
Really for the Poles?

Kovalski

11-07-2007, 10:48 AM

Kovalski, man, do not tell me that the Polish soldiers disobeyed the orders in Szack!!! ;)
I don't know what was the reason of the assault. Maybe Soviet wanted to disarm them? I searching for some detailed info about that battle.

Kovalski

11-07-2007, 11:32 AM

But the the most of Western historians gives us a very relatively small figure of soviet soldiers killed by the Poles as well as the Soviet historians tells that in most case the Red Army did not meet the resistance.
This obviously proved that indeed no more then 10-15% of about 250 000 of polish POWs tryed to resist the Soviets.
Thus the conclusion - poles did not actively fought with Red Army.

I think the reason that the majority of polish soldiers in the East were caught in such big numbers and in such short period of time was that polish government didn't officially announced the state of war between Poland and USSR. If we add the instruction given to soldiers about rules of engagement with Red Army, it resulted in huge disorientation and mess. I assume that the communications between polish HQ and units were broken. So it complemented the chaos.
Of course any polish unit which was attacked by RA resisted. Probably the majority of these soldiers were caught because of the R.O.E. order. It was obscure and at least "improper" (IMO).
Nevertheless, the KOP forces (Borderland Defence Corps - 20.000 troops on 17th of September) were actively fighting the Red Army, but don't forget they had to face 30 infantry div., 10 cavalry div. and 12 motorized brigades.

Well mate no problems you know i will always forgive you;)

Chevan, your generosity made you famous :)

But excuse me too - how would the polish 25 battalions in the bother die for the Estern Polish lands - meanwhile the native local population hated and kiled them in much more scale then the Red Army?
As i said - if the local population together with Red Army fight agains poles - does it not prove the oobvious fact - the poles were the rough invaiders in there?;)

Chevan, you're talking about civilian attacking Polish. I already asked you about some sources, because I don't know nothing about such cases. Could you provide any?

Pozdrawiam,
Kovalski

Chevan

11-08-2007, 05:34 AM

Chevan, you're talking about civilian attacking Polish. I already asked you about some sources, because I don't know nothing about such cases. Could you provide any?

Did you really not read the any infor about Ukrainian terroristic fight with Poles untill 1939?;)
OUN abreviature something tell you about?
According the Wiki the OUN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_%281939%29#_note-Stosunki
2,500 polish POWs executed in immediate reprisals or by anti-Polish OUN bands
Sanford, p. 20–24.

http://wcry.narod.ru/meltyukhov2/03.html
Как отмечал 20 сентября в своем донесении Сталину из войск 4-го кавкорпуса начальник Политуправления РККА армейский комиссар 1 ранга Л. 3. Мехлис, «польские офицеры, кроме отдельных групп, потеряв армию и перспективу убежать в Румынию, стараются сдаться нам по двум мотивам:

1) Они опасаются попасть в плен к немцам и
2) Как огня боятся украинских крестьян и населения, которые активизировались с приходом Красной армии и расправляются с польскими офицерами. Дошло до того, что в Бурштыне польские офицеры, отправленные корпусом в школу и охраняемые незначительным караулом, просили увеличить число охраняющих их, как пленных, бойцов, чтобы избежать возможной расправы с ними населения»{
.................................................. ..
As i was noticed by the comissar 1-rang Mehlis in his report- the poles readily surrendering for the Red Army coz the two very importaint reson;):
1. Fear to be captured by Germans
2. Fear of retrebution of local Ukraine peasants, who have rised its activity when Red Army entered to the Western Ukraine.For instance in the Bushtin the POW polish officers, guarded by the few soviet soldiers ASKED the soviet command to INCREASE the guard to prevent the possible reprisals of local Ukraine population ( i.e. the peasants).

The rise of anti-polish feelings among the Western Ukrainians and Belorussians was a LOGICAL consequences of the policy of Polonisation. So i think you should not be surprised for the ukrain terrorists fight agains poles.

Kovalski

11-08-2007, 06:26 AM

Did you really not read the any infor about Ukrainian terroristic fight with Poles untill 1939?;)
OUN abreviature something tell you about?
According the Wiki the OUN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_%281939%29#_note-Stosunki
2,500 polish POWs executed in immediate reprisals or by anti-Polish OUN bands
Sanford, p. 20–24.

The rise of anti-polish feelings among the Western Ukrainians and Belorussians was a LOGICAL consequences of the policy of Polonisation. So i think you should not be surprised for the ukrain terrorists fight agains poles.

Aaa!

Of course I heard about that. I misunderstood you, I'm sorry. I thought you were thinking about some cooperation between RA and ukrainian and belorussian civilians in september 1939.

Believe me or not, but I learned in school about Polonisation, and polish repressions against Ukrainian, Belorussians and other nationalities.;)
I also learned about OUN and widely understood ukrainian "countermesures" and anti-polish terrorism.

Chevan

11-08-2007, 08:10 AM

Aaa!

Of course I heard about that. I misunderstood you, I'm sorry. I thought you were thinking about some cooperation between RA and ukrainian and belorussian civilians in september 1939.

Believe me or not, but I learned in school about Polonisation, and polish repressions against Ukrainian, Belorussians and other nationalities.;)
I also learned about OUN and widely understood ukrainian "countermesures" and anti-polish terrorism.
Well i m not sure they interacted with RA but the certainly attacked the poles. And they killed many of them according to the reports.
Sure the terrorist OUN was not a peasants , however they clearly expressed the average relation of local ukrainians.
So this is very resonable fact thet the many poles simply surrendered to the RA instead of to fight against RA.
They were not cowards, but to fight for ALIEN lands with hostitle population - is stopid suicide.

Kovalski

11-09-2007, 07:06 PM

Well i m not sure they interacted with RA but the certainly attacked the poles. And they killed many of them according to the reports.
Sure the terrorist OUN was not a peasants , however they clearly expressed the average relation of local ukrainians.

Well, it's not my opinoin but yours.
But still you haven't give me a single source mate.

So this is very resonable fact thet the many poles simply surrendered to the RA instead of to fight against RA.
They were not cowards, but to fight for ALIEN lands with hostitle population - is stopid suicide.

OK Chevan I'm sorry, I can't comment in a different way - your conclusion is simply stupid.
Please give me the exact research, any source, which was a base for such explanation - which would tell you that these lands were hostile for polish soldiers.

If you can't provide such info, it seems you are telling fairy tales again mate.
And I can't argue with you then, I treat this topic as closed.

1000ydstare

11-10-2007, 02:55 AM

[qoute=Chevan]Sure we know they have no the bombs and shells - they have ONLY enought leaflets[/quote]

At the start of the war, the RAF were strictly limited in what they could do. The Germans were streets ahead, and had already masted the doctrine of total war.

The RAF on the other hand, were originally prevented from bombing factories and the like on the grounds they were private property.

The Germans were much better prepared, drilled and equipped at the time (even with the much vaunted all mech Army of the British) than any other nation in Europe.

ALL nations had slept whilst the Germans reequipped and remobilised a huge force.

Nickdfresh

11-10-2007, 12:47 PM

Well i/m actually don't guess how the British Royal fleet and the RAF could help the Poles;)
Sure we know they have no the bombs and shells - they have ONLY enought leaflets:D

And what could do the 98 French-British infantry divisions on "Maginot line" plus 2500 tanks and 1000+ airsctrafts against the 43 germans divisions without tanks ans aviation at all;)
Sure they could do nothing;)
We all know that is was quite inpossible to fight with GErmans having the 2:1 superiority in infantry and armoured vehicles - were the French so stoopid?;)No...
They would better wait.

In fact - they did. In one of the more overlooked interesting historical "what-ifs," the French Army conducted what amounted too a large probing attack into Germany, through the Maginot Line and took a sizable amount of German territory...

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3283

But one must consider that the French had severe doctrinal limitations, and the large collection of reactionary asshats commanding their army.

The French "superiority" in armored vehicles is largelly illusionary - since they had no real idea how tanks should be employed and still followed the fatally flawed "infantry tank" vs. "cavalry tank" model of both design and and theory. Therefore, their armor was thinly spread throughout the front with only one hastily forming true armored division to speak of with any real potential for modern, mobile warfare along that battle of maneuver lines.

However, the French did seem to have good tactical success with this operation. But lacking a combined arms approach to warfare, we can argue for eternity if the French continuing and even expanding this attack could have changed the outcome for of the Battle of France...

In any case, it was too late for Poland, being crushed between two totalitarian aggressors, for the Brits or French to do anything substantial...

Drake

11-10-2007, 04:44 PM

Actually the germans retreated deliberatly and the french had a problem, cause they didn't really know what do to with that open front ahead. They were very afraid to run into a trap. They wanted to meet the germans on the maginot line, this had been their entire world of planning for 20 years. They were just completely unprepared for anything which looks remotly like modern maneuvre warfare at the time.

Chevan

11-11-2007, 01:19 PM

But one must consider that the French had severe doctrinal limitations, and the large collection of reactionary asshats commanding their army.

The French "superiority" in armored vehicles is largelly illusionary - since they had no real idea how tanks should be employed and still followed the fatally flawed "infantry tank" vs. "cavalry tank" model of both design and and theory. Therefore, their armor was thinly spread throughout the front with only one hastily forming true armored division to speak of with any real potential for modern, mobile warfare along that battle of maneuver lines.

Well let's admit you right.
So WHY then the French and Britains had Lied for the Poles - according the Polish-Franch treaty the France was OBLIGATED to began the active combat offencive in the Western fron no late 14 days since the beginning of war?
Why they "bring guaranties" for the Poles if they were not able to do anything?
If you you said they Frenchs captured the "sizable amount of German territory" - why in this way the GErmans 20 divisions not even entered to the active combats near the French bother?;)
In any case, it was too late for Poland, being crushed between two totalitarian aggressors, for the Brits or French to do anything substantial...
Hey wait , wait a little.
Focuse please in this question.
Why did so happend that two "Mortal totalitarian agressors" who openly hated each other untill 1939 and never made a mystery of inevitable war between them- could signed a non-agression pact?
What was a reason?

Chevan

11-11-2007, 01:36 PM

At the start of the war, the RAF were strictly limited in what they could do. The Germans were streets ahead, and had already masted the doctrine of total war.

It seems for me you mistake ydstare/
in the 1939 nobody in Germany thought about Total war ( i.e war on two fronts).
The GErmans hight militarty comand FEARED it a much . Hitler only dreamed about Eastern Lands ( i.e the war in the East).
And only when he signed a pact withe the USSR he had thought about war in the West.

The RAF on the other hand, were originally prevented from bombing factories and the like on the grounds they were private property.

The Germans were much better prepared, drilled and equipped at the time (even with the much vaunted all mech Army of the British) than any other nation in Europe.

Sorry It seems for me again - you tangled.
he Germans army in the 1939 was not like in mid of 1941 when the Hitler captured whole western continental Europe and its resources.
In the 1939 the GErmans survived the enought hard military company in Poland and according the Germans they won only coz the Frace did nothing.
In fact in this moment ( the company in Poland) the Reich was MOST WEAK in the Western front.

ALL nations had slept whilst the Germans reequipped and remobilised a huge force.
Really all nations;)
I think ONLY the British and French govenments ha slept.
The other actively prepeared for the new war ( they choosed the which side to join;))
The Civil War in Spain frankly showed the close perspectives of the Europe.
Well i could understand why they slept?
The Further promised the new war in the East - so they were calm.
According its plans- the Next target in the 1940 for Germany would be the USSR.

Nickdfresh

11-12-2007, 06:48 AM

Well let's admit you right.
So WHY then the French and Britains had Lied for the Poles - according the Polish-Franch treaty the France was OBLIGATED to began the active combat offencive in the Western fron no late 14 days since the beginning of war?
Why they "bring guaranties" for the Poles if they were not able to do anything?
If you you said they Frenchs captured the "sizable amount of German territory" - why in this way the GErmans 20 divisions not even entered to the active combats near the French bother?;)
...

It seems for me you mistake ydstare/
in the 1939 nobody in Germany thought about Total war ( i.e war on two fronts).
The GErmans hight militarty comand FEARED it a much . Hitler only dreamed about Eastern Lands ( i.e the war in the East).
And only when he signed a pact withe the USSR he had thought about war in the West.

Sorry It seems for me again - you tangled.
he Germans army in the 1939 was not like in mid of 1941 when the Hitler captured whole western continental Europe and its resources.
In the 1939 the GErmans survived the enought hard military company in Poland and according the Germans they won only coz the Frace did nothing.
In fact in this moment ( the company in Poland) the Reich was MOST WEAK in the Western front.

Really all nations;)
I think ONLY the British and French govenments ha slept.
The other actively prepeared for the new war ( they choosed the which side to join;))
The Civil War in Spain frankly showed the close perspectives of the Europe.
Well i could understand why they slept?
The Further promised the new war in the East - so they were calm.
According its plans- the Next target in the 1940 for Germany would be the USSR.

I've never seen the wording of the treaty. Can you provide a link?

Germany was quite a bit ahead of the other European states in theory and conceptualization of warfare. The French strategy was essentially defensive attrition using the Maginot Line as the first line of defense (eventually, the French started believing their own "impregnable" propaganda, and it became essentially the center piece of their strategy), not armored vehicles, or even infantry. Since the French male birthrate was essentially half that of Germany's, the French knew they could never fight an extended Franco-German war suffering the same level of casualties as the Germans did without capitulation, which is why they essentially put all their eggs in one basket hoping for a cataclysmic battle in which they severally blooded the Wehrmacht in Belgium..

Secondly, you're acting as if the French and British could have even mobilized and put air wings on station within the time that Germany and the USSR carved into Poland. The battle was over in a month, no? How were they to get reserves trained up and send any sort of expeditionary force? Britain's Army was small and there was no effective land bridge to Poland. I think the British and the French were thinking the War was going to take months, not weeks..

And as for the RAF, they suffered horrendous casualties flying tactical air support in the Battle for France largely because their main light strike bomber, the Fairey Battle (3 out of 8 were shot down - see the Wiki link), was obsolete and completely outclassed by Luftwaffe fighters and Wehrmacht AAA. What could they have done when deployed to Poland? Maybe given them to the Russians when they invaded the east on a "hostile preemptive lend lease program?" ;) I don't think the Red Air Force wanted them man...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Battle

Chevan

11-12-2007, 08:57 AM

I've never seen the wording of the treaty. Can you provide a link?

The Polish-British pact is here
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/bluebook/blbk19.htm
However there is no the text of the addendum where were described the conditiond of the military asistence.
In a secret protocol of the pact, the United Kingdom only actually offered assistance in the case of an attack on Poland specifically by Germany, though both the United Kingdom and Poland were bound not to enter agreements with any other third countries which were a threat to the other.

Secondly, you're acting as if the French and British could have even mobilized and put air wings on station within the time that Germany and the USSR carved into Poland. The battle was over in a month, no? How were they to get reserves trained up and send any sort of expeditionary force? Britain's Army was small and there was no effective land bridge to Poland. I think the British and the French were thinking the War was going to take months, not weeks..

They WERE OBLIGATED to mobilaze and bagan the comat activity throught few week( france - though 15 days).
If had no any ability to attack the GErmans as you tell - then we could conclude that they Bluffed and lied to Poles.

And as for the RAF, they suffered horrendous casualties flying tactical air support in the Battle for France largely because their main light strike bomber, the Fairey Battle (3 out of 8 were shot down - see the Wiki link), was obsolete and completely outclassed by Luftwaffe fighters and Wehrmacht AAA. What could they have done when deployed to Poland?

Why they need to be deployed in Poland Nick?
They WERE OBLIGATED to begin the attack from the West where they still had the great quantity superiority.
Indeed as it was proved - Poland could hold the GErmans enought time ( at least whole month) However the allies did nothing to neitralize the GErmansy in the west.

Maybe given them to the Russians when they invaded the east on a "hostile preemptive lend lease program?" ;) I don't think the Red Air Force wanted them man...

Well i/m too do not think the RAF pilots really wanted to fight and die for the Poles;)

Nickdfresh

11-12-2007, 10:32 AM

The Polish-British pact is here
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/bluebook/blbk19.htm
However there is no the text of the addendum where were described the conditiond of the military asistence.
In a secret protocol of the pact, the United Kingdom only actually offered assistance in the case of an attack on Poland specifically by Germany, though both the United Kingdom and Poland were bound not to enter agreements with any other third countries which were a threat to the other.

They WERE OBLIGATED to mobilaze and bagan the comat activity throught few week( france - though 15 days).
If had no any ability to attack the GErmans as you tell - then we could conclude that they Bluffed and lied to Poles.

Oh, so it was a secret protocol, eh?
And as I expected, the "protocol" only addresses "aid" to the Poles, not military offensives to be launched in favor of them. Of course, such a provision would be reminiscent of one of the fundamental causes WWI.

Why they need to be deployed in Poland Nick?
They WERE OBLIGATED to begin the attack from the West where they still had the great quantity superiority.
Indeed as it was proved - Poland could hold the GErmans enought time ( at least whole month) However the allies did nothing to neitralize the GErmansy in the west.

Well i/m too do not think the RAF pilots really wanted to fight and die for the Poles;)

Again, you're massively oversimplifying things. Neither the French nor British Armies were in any position to begin an attack within two-weeks (supposedly) or even a month...

But since they did declare war on the Germans, and fought Germany even while no one else did, apparently the RAF, and those civilians and military officers that commanded them, were indeed willing to fight and die. They just simply were unable to do much in 1939.

And you're again assuming the French and British had real-time intelligence as too German order of battle and of the entire situation in Sept. 1939, which they clearly did not. And the Polish Army, by weight of numbers alone, was not considered to be a push over. What would make you think the Allies were not leery about the apparent German military capabilities? Even if they had mobilized in time to launch an offensive in the West...

P.S. - And mind you, I'm as critical of anybody of the French for not taking the offensive against the Germans in 1939-1940. But there were reasons why they didn't that were consistent with why they lost the Battle for France, and it had nothing to do with indifference to the suffering of the Poles or not meeting treaty obligations as you seem to want to wrongly imply...

Egorka

11-12-2007, 03:50 PM

P.S. - And mind you, I'm as critical of anybody of the French for not taking the offensive against the Germans in 1939-1940. But there were reasons why they didn't that were consistent with why they lost the Battle for France, and it had nothing to do with indifference to the suffering of the Poles or not meeting treaty obligations as you seem to want to wrongly imply...

Nickfresh and others,

You have said many words and presented many reasons for defence of the England and France. You attempted to show that there were reasons for what they did, how they did and when they did. As well as what they did not do, how they did not do and when they did not do.
All this make sense! I really mean it. I do see the point in your words when you say that there were actually existing objective grounds for the UK/French actions and methods to approach the situation.

My question now to all of you is

Why do not you see any objective grounds for USSR to act the way it did in 1939?
Any at all?
Why is that everything that USSR did was done out of supernatural evilness, whereas when UK/France do something there is always a reasonable explanation for that?

Firefly

11-12-2007, 04:01 PM

I imagine that the Soviets joining in the war against Poland pretty much scared the UK and France. I also think that France and the UK not attacking Germany in 1939 was a mistake. To declare war on the USSR was a step that they just couldnt countenance I suppose. Although in hindsight, maybe they should have.

Chevan

11-13-2007, 03:58 AM

To declare war on the USSR was a step that they just couldnt countenance I suppose. Although in hindsight, maybe they should have.

To declare the War to the USSR was inpossible for the both France and Britain.
Coz in this way the USSR fall to be the ally of the Germany.
If the GErmany ALONE conquered of the Whole continenlal Europe - it they has got the resources of the USSR and Red Army as ally - Neither USA nor the GOD did not saved the Britain from the full defeat
As the resault the Axis with USSR could easy later win the war with USA.
This clearly understood both Hitler and Stalin ( like and Chamerlian and Deladie).
Thus the Poland IMO has bacome the victim of several importaint things: the British/French lie "guaranties", the Hitler expansion plans to the East , and the Soviet wishes to eliminate the old polish enemy since the 1920 and return back the capturing by poles territories.
Well almost forget.
And the first reason of couse - the Naivety ( that limits with stopidity) of the polish gov who refuse the all attempts of Stalin to creat France-Polish-Soviet system of collective anti-german defence.

Egorka

11-13-2007, 07:20 AM

As the resault the Axis with USSR could easy later win the war with USA.
The chances are that there would not be need for war with USA.
Ones UK is defeated the British Empier would colapse releasing large areas into the open to be grabbed by others (USA) or locals.
USA could had just settled for the new world order trying to normalize the relationship with both Germany and USSR. I think it is a very likelly "what if" scenario.

Nickdfresh

11-13-2007, 04:56 PM

Nickfresh and others,

You have said many words and presented many reasons for defence of the England and France. You attempted to show that there were reasons for what they did, how they did and when they did. As well as what they did not do, how they did not do and when they did not do.
All this make sense! I really mean it. I do see the point in your words when you say that there were actually existing objective grounds for the UK/French actions and methods to approach the situation.

My question now to all of you is

Why do not you see any objective grounds for USSR to act the way it did in 1939?
Any at all?
Why is that everything that USSR did was done out of supernatural evilness, whereas when UK/France do something there is always a reasonable explanation for that?

I understand that the USSR had intrinsic motivations for their actions that had much to do about national survival. But it's hard to be sympathetic about a Soviet invasion of Poland, synchronized with the Nazi Germans, and the resulting massacres of Polish Army officers and the intelligentsia. While I've no doubt Stalin felt he was acting in the Soviet's best interests, its invasion of Poland in hardly comparable to the supposed failure of France and Britain to act against the Nazi regime in 1939.

Nickdfresh

11-13-2007, 05:02 PM

To declare the War to the USSR was inpossible for the both France and Britain.
Coz in this way the USSR fall to be the ally of the Germany.
...

In 1939, they pretty much already were...

And the first reason of couse - the Naivety ( that limits with stopidity) of the polish gov who refuse the all attempts of Stalin to creat France-Polish-Soviet system of collective anti-german defence.

Yeah, I guess they had it coming then, didn't they?!

Nickdfresh

11-13-2007, 05:43 PM

The chances are that there would not be need for war with USA.
Ones UK is defeated the British Empier would colapse releasing large areas into the open to be grabbed by others (USA) or locals.
USA could had just settled for the new world order trying to normalize the relationship with both Germany and USSR. I think it is a very likelly "what if" scenario.

Or they would have stood by; waiting for the inevitable Russo-German empire War...

Egorka

11-14-2007, 03:03 AM

I understand that the USSR had intrinsic motivations for their actions that had much to do about national survival. But it's hard to be sympathetic about a Soviet invasion of Poland, synchronized with the Nazi Germans, and the resulting massacres of Polish Army officers and the intelligentsia. While I've no doubt Stalin felt he was acting in the Soviet's best interests, its invasion of Poland in hardly comparable to the supposed failure of France and Britain to act against the Nazi regime in 1939.
Nick, You do not need to be sympathetic. Simple understanding of the historical events is enough.

It is not a "supposed failure". It was not failure at all. One has to deserve to fail. They did not even try. And guess what! I do understand them very well!!! I do not think it was moral, nice nor polite how they acted. But I do undestand them.

As well as I do understand Poland that did not want to cooperate with USSR in 1939. But that is the whole point that shows the tragedy of this fallen world - you think you do good whereas you in reallity make a great mistake. But we can (if we can at all) see it only in retroperspective.
It is like most people that supported (except maybe the US govement) the invasion into Iraq were thinking they were doing a good thing - as a result by far more people died in Iraq since then than during the whole Saddam's rule.

Katyn is a absolutely separate case. It was clearly a crime. But I am sure they did not plan it in September 1939. The reunification of West Ukraine and West Belorussia do not nesessary had to lead to Katyn. These are two separate tragedies.

1PUK

11-14-2007, 04:34 AM

the polish gov who refuse the all attempts of Stalin to creat France-Polish-Soviet system of collective anti-german defence.

As I've said before it was about trust. Poland did not trust the Soviets.

Chevan

11-14-2007, 05:02 AM

As I've said before it was about trust. Poland did not trust the Soviets.
But Poland trust the Britain, right?
So did it help them much;)?

1PUK

11-14-2007, 06:18 AM

But Poland trust the Britain, right?
So did it help them much;)?

Lets look at what might have happened if Poland had cooperated with the Soviets: Polish soldiers rounded up and murdered, a Polish puppet government, Soviet troops in Poland until at least 1991.

OH NO!!!! That’s what actually happened.

Nickdfresh

11-15-2007, 11:54 AM

The off-topic (in relevance to the Polish forces fighting in WWII) posts have been moved to this thread:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4246&page=4

This thread is reopened, but it is not here to discuss the merits versus the controversy of the Soviet invasion, or perhaps counter-invasion, of Poland in 1939. Start another thread for that...

Chevan

11-15-2007, 02:48 PM

Lets look at what might have happened if Poland had cooperated with the Soviets: Polish soldiers rounded up and murdered, a Polish puppet government, Soviet troops in Poland until at least 1991.

OH NO!!!! That’s what actually happened.
But since the 1999 here has come the American NATO.
So now you should be happy right?
Lets look for what might have happend - Polish external dept is over 100 billions and continie increase, polish puppet govenment ready to realise any wish of Wasington ( even to send the trops to Iraq) getting the political damage.
And americans planned to instal the ecologically danger AA-Rockets to aim that the intercepted the Nuclear rockets of Iran will fall to the territory Poland ( to save the western Europe of it).
And yes....That's what actually today going on:)

1PUK

11-15-2007, 03:16 PM

puppet govenment ready to realise any wish of Wasington

The Poles can do what they choose without the threat of the Americans sending in tanks etc if the Poles do something the Americans do not like.

Kovalski

11-15-2007, 03:56 PM

But since the 1999 here has come the American NATO.
So now you should be happy right?

You bet we are mate :)

Lets look for what might have happend - Polish external dept is over 100 billions and continie increase, polish puppet govenment ready to realise any wish of Wasington ( even to send the trops to Iraq) getting the political damage.
And americans planned to instal the ecologically danger AA-Rockets to aim that the intercepted the Nuclear rockets of Iran will fall to the territory Poland ( to save the western Europe of it).
And yes....That's what actually today going on:)

Chevan, could you provide something more about those bold ones?

Pozdrawiam,
Kovalski

Chevan

11-16-2007, 12:15 AM

The Poles can do what they choose without the threat of the Americans sending in tanks etc if the Poles do something the Americans do not like.
What did bad for the poles the soviet tanks ?
The Soviet military contingent was placed on a case of new War. The simular american contingents were in the Western Germany.
As far as i know the soviet tanks were out of the actions in Poland- all the repressions like the shoting the demonstrant in Gdansk in 1970 were sanctioned by the Local Polish authrities with using the polish military forces.

Chevan

11-16-2007, 12:43 AM

Chevan, could you provide something more about those bold ones?

Mate there is a lot of links about this discuss in European mass media ., You could search it in English if you want.

Kovalski

11-16-2007, 01:58 AM

What did bad for the poles the soviet tanks ?
The Soviet military contingent was placed on a case of new War. The simular american contingents were in the Western Germany.
As far as i know the soviet tanks were out of the actions in Poland- all the repressions like the shoting the demonstrant in Gdansk in 1970 were sanctioned by the Local Polish authrities with using the polish military forces.

In your next post you'll surely write that the polish commie puppet government was the only legal one in polish history and this one only had the real support of Poles :)
The rest of governments were full of CIA or MI6 agents and the polish kings were in fact Prussian, German, Austrian, Swedish or Turkish spies who were playing their role in all-world anti-Rrussian conspiracy ;)

And BTW, Soviet tanks in Poland had some work to do, for example in Czechoslovakia, were the New War, as you call it, had begun. And I just can't recall who was the attacker? U.S., West Germany, British or French? Oh no! I remember now, that terrifying civilians who became such a thrilling enemy for brave soviet soldiers that they needed to use their tanks against them!
Besides that soviet soldiers in Poland built hundreds of schools, hospitals etc., didn't rape any girl, didn't murdered anyone and didn't steal a single watch!

So many reasons to be proud Chevan.

Pozdrawiam,
Kovalski

Chevan

11-16-2007, 02:47 AM

In your next post you'll surely write that the polish commie puppet government was the only legal one in polish history and this one only had the real support of Poles :)

Well i don't know who was a legal gov - hovever we both know for sure that the 3++ millions of Polish member of communist party voited and supported the policy of Gomulko and Garek.
And do not forget about pupet polish MVD, puppet policy and puppet polish elite that so like to kiss comride Breznev and singed the sweet songs for him in 1960-70
I did not even guess how supposed soviets tanks could change the polish maind without any shot.;)

And BTW, Soviet tanks in Poland had some work to do, for example in Czechoslovakia, were the New War, as you call it, had begun.

No man . The New thermonuclear War could be possible if not the soviets troops in the Eastern Europe.
BTW the in patisipation in Chehoslovakia TOOK ACTIVE PART the Polish troops too.And Gomulka was glad to suppress the Czech "nationalists".
I hope you did not forget about this sad fact;)

And I just can't recall who was the attacker? U.S., West Germany, British or French?

USA, oh mate sure no.:D
The USA as you remember was TOO busy in slaughtering the Vietnam villiages by napalm and chemical wearpon- than they even They send to the Breznev though diplomatic channels the massage- the CHEHOSLOVAKIA IS A INNER ISSUE OF SOVIET BLOCK.
Therefore no "independent" West GErmany, France and Britain did not dream to attack the Soviet block.

Oh no! I remember now, that terrifying civilians who became such a thrilling enemy for brave soviet soldiers that they needed to use their tanks against them!

Oh mate now you are remembering , that a great;)
So i think you remember lik the "terriifying civiliance" burned on the soviet tanks and enjoy the show like the soviet tankers try to put out the flame.
Coz the y CLEARLY know - the SOviets had STRICT ORDER - DO NOT OPEN FIRE to the "civiliance".

Besides that soviet soldiers in Poland built hundreds of schools, hospitals etc., didn't rape any girl, didn't murdered anyone and didn't steal a single watch!

Building the schools?
No mate the soviets were busy - they raped the polish girls by a bunches per day.They increased the population of Poland since 33 mil in 1945 untill the 60 mln in the 1991.You know the Dastard Stalin presented much German territories for Poland ( whole Eastern Prussia) that was unpopulate.
So the Soviet soldiers had a secret mission- to increase the polish polulation- so they had a personal responsibility for a such great quantity of Poles today.;)
Meanwhile the poles build a great heavy industry ( not only hospitals , scholls) using the CHEAP soviet oil and materials.

So many reasons to be proud Chevan.

Definitelly i have no so much reason for pride like you have;)
But that's true...

Kovalski

11-16-2007, 03:24 AM

Well i don't know who was a legal gov - hovever we both know for sure that the 3++ millions of Polish member of communist party voited and supported the policy of Gomulko and Garek.
And do not forget about pupet polish MVD, puppet policy and puppet polish elite that so like to kiss comride Breznev and singed the sweet songs for him in 1960-70
I did not even guess how supposed soviets tanks could change the polish maind without any shot.;)

It's great you agree at last that polish commies were just a bunch of puppets;)

No man . The New thermonuclear War could be possible if not the soviets troops in the Eastern Europe.
BTW the in patisipation in Chehoslovakia TOOK ACTIVE PART the Polish troops too.And Gomulka was glad to suppress the Czech "nationalists".
I hope you did not forget about this sad fact;)

USA, oh mate sure no.:D
The USA as you remember was TOO busy in slaughtering the Vietnam villiages by napalm and chemical wearpon- than they even They send to the Breznev though diplomatic channels the massage- the CHEHOSLOVAKIA IS A INNER ISSUE OF SOVIET BLOCK.
Therefore no "independent" West GErmany, France and Britain did not dream to attack the Soviet block.

As Man of Stoat said here: http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5563
"I love this post-modernist approach to history, in that when discussing really really bad things done by another nation/group you are abjectly criticised if you don't have a full "mea culpa" included about all the slightly bad things that your nation/group has done, and even if you do give such a mea culpa you are criticised for being critical at all because your own country's history is not whiter than a vestal virgin's silken underthings.

It's the academic equivalent of "how dare you criticise Mohammed Atta for murdering thousands of people on 9/11, you stole and broke Emily Parkinson's pencil in fifth grade, so you are hardly blameless"

Oh mate now you are remembering , that a great;)
So i think you remember lik the "terriifying civiliance" burned on the soviet tanks and enjoy the show like the soviet tankers try to put out the flame.
Coz the y CLEARLY know - the SOviets had STRICT ORDER - DO NOT OPEN FIRE to the "civiliance".

Oh how could these bloodthirsty czech and slovakian civilians burn peace-loving soviet soldiers in their tanks?
These guys were just on a holiday trip, when they were attacked :)

Building the schools?
No mate the soviets were busy - they raped the polish girls by a bunches per day.They increased the population of Poland since 33 mil in 1945 untill the 60 mln in the 1991.You know the Dastard Stalin presented much German territories for Poland ( whole Eastern Prussia) that was unpopulate.
So the Soviet soldiers had a secret mission- to increase the polish polulation- so they had a personal responsibility for a such great quantity of Poles today.;)
Meanwhile the poles build a great heavy industry ( not only hospitals , scholls) using the CHEAP soviet oil and materials.

At least!
Chevan admitted what soviets did in Poland after the war!
I always believed in you! Finally, you opened your eyes :)
But you had to mixed something, maybe the soviet soldiers were on a secret mission somewhere else, because Poland had never had 60 millions of citizens mate :D
So where were they achieve this? Got some info in the famous Chevan's database?

And remember that you would be able to produce anything if you didn't steal all advanced technology from the west ;)
Not mentioning the polish coal, which you demanded to be sold to USSR by a price 10 times lower than price in world market.

Firefly

11-16-2007, 03:55 AM

I think the big difference here is the difference between coercion and force.

The US often coerces other countries into either doing its bidding or joining in. This takes many forms, trade deals for example and so the country doing the US's bidding always gains something from it [or will do in the future].

The Soviets simply used puppets and force to make other countries do their bidding with absolutely no chance to say no or no exonomic or other benefits.

Any country can always say no to the US [Germany and France in GW-1 is a good example] which clearly wasnt true for those in the Soviet Block.

Chevan

11-16-2007, 04:02 AM

It's great you agree at last that polish commies were just a bunch of puppets;)

Buch of puppets is at least a THIRD part of Polish ACTIVE population.
It was Puppet Poland - not gov.

It's the academic equivalent of "how dare you criticise Mohammed Atta for murdering thousands of people on 9/11, you stole and broke Emily Parkinson's pencil in fifth grade, so you are hardly blameless"

Itts not so simple mate- indeed you have to undertsna this so - how dare you blamed the Taliban , captiring the the Iraq when it was a Saudi camicadze that fly the airpains in 9/11.

Oh how could these bloodthirsty czech and slovakian civilians burn peace-loving soviet soldiers in their tanks?
These guys were just on a holiday trip, when they were attacked :)

Oh mate those piacefull soldiers at least did not try to shote to them utill the most end and drop to them the Molotove Coctail.
They have no ot it.But Czhech had it - coz they always walk in parade with Molotov's.
And you are rather biased to presend the usial soldiers from the People Army of USSR and Poland like the bastards.

At least!
Chevan admitted what soviets did in Poland after the war!
I always believed in you! Finally, you opened your eyes :)

My eyes was wide open every time when you begin the rosophobian threas.

But you had to mixed something, maybe the soviet soldiers were on a secret mission somewhere else, because Poland had never had 60 millions of citizens mate :D

So now you see - they raped not as much as you dream:)
They just could reach the 37 mln in 1991;)
What a bastards.They did not realized the plan;)

So where were they achieve this? Got some info in the famous Chevan's database?

Famouse?

And remember that you would be able to produce anything if you didn't steal all advanced technology from the west ;)

I thought you would say from Advanced polish tehnologies:)

Not mentioning the polish coal, which you demanded to be sold to USSR by a price 10 times lower than price in world market.
Coal - who need the polish coals in USSR mate?
The Ukrainian Donbass and Russian Kuzbass prodused a more then enought after the reconstructions in late 1949.
But yess the stopid commi bued the Polish coal in two-thee time higher then the Ukrainians one.
They need to support it ally- Poland, and supplied the oil that POLAND had no at all on the soviet lowest prices.
BTW do you ever know the so called Polish coal is indeed the German coal of Silesia that was presented to Poles form by the "evil Soviet regime".
The dastard Stalin again.....

Kovalski

11-16-2007, 08:56 AM

Buch of puppets is at least a THIRD part of Polish ACTIVE population.
It was Puppet Poland - not gov.

- said Chevan, the greatest expert in polish history ever!

Itts not so simple mate- indeed you have to undertsna this so - how dare you blamed the Taliban , captiring the the Iraq when it was a Saudi camicadze that fly the airpains in 9/11.

It is simple mate. Every time I point out some nasty things done by the Soviets, you say that polish weren't clean. It is your way of discussion.

Oh mate those piacefull soldiers at least did not try to shote to them utill the most end and drop to them the Molotove Coctail.
They have no ot it.But Czhech had it - coz they always walk in parade with Molotov's.
And you are rather biased to presend the usial soldiers from the People Army of USSR and Poland like the bastards.

It is not about who threw the first coctail or fired a first shot.
It is about what were the Soviets doing in Czechoslovakia? What they went there?

My eyes was wide open every time when you begin the rosophobian threas.

This thread my friend wasn't about Russians at all. Please check the title.
"The Poles on the fronts".
It is not about Russians.
And it is you who started this discussion, in this embarrassing way of argue.
Nobody said a word about Russians before you posted here.

So now you see - they raped not as much as you dream:)
They just could reach the 37 mln in 1991;)
What a bastards.They did not realized the plan;)

This sense of humour is much below my standards.
I ain't gonna answer that.

The Ukrainian Donbass and Russian Kuzbass prodused a more then enought after the reconstructions in late 1949.

You're trying to convince me that that production prevented Soviets from stealing more coal?

BTW do you ever know the so called Polish coal is indeed the German coal of Silesia that was presented to Poles form by the "evil Soviet regime".
The dastard Stalin again.....

But who asked him to do so?

I suppose I know the answer coming from your database.

Nickdfresh

11-16-2007, 12:36 PM

Here's a pertinent thread:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3695

Comrade Molotov Speaks:

http://www.histdoc.net/history/molotov.html

"Germany, which has lately united 80 million Germans, has submitted certain neighboring countries to her supremacy and gained military strength in many aspects, and thus has become, as clearly can be seen, a dangerous rival to principal imperialistic powers in Europe - England and France. That is why they declared war on Germany on a pretext of fulfilling the obligations given to Poland. It is now clearer than ever, how remote the real aims of the cabinets in these countries were from the interests of defending the now disintegrated Poland or Czechoslovakia. This is shown if only by the fact, that the British and French governments declared that their aim in this war is to smash and dismember Germany, although this target is concealed from the masses of the people under the cover of slogans of defending the "democratic" countries and the "rights" of small nations.

When the Soviet Union did not want to be an accomplice with England and France in carrying out this imperialistic policy against Germany, the hostility in their attitudes regarding the Soviet Union became still more pronounced, giving a vivid evidence, how profound the class roots of the imperialists' hostile politics against the socialist state are. The Anglo-French imperialists were ready to escalate the war started in Finland to a war against the USSR and not only utilizing Finland to this purpose - but also Scandinavian countries, Sweden and Norway."

Chevan

11-19-2007, 03:04 AM

- said Chevan, the greatest expert in polish history ever!

Yes , said Chevan who has a manis polish friends;)

It is simple mate. Every time I point out some nasty things done by the Soviets, you say that polish weren't clean. It is your way of discussion.

Well mate i just COULD not creat EVERY year the simular thread about polish nasti things;)
Coz i know this could be unpleasant for you;)There are a lot of such things , you know it.in polish history.
But if you persist - i might to do it instead to argue with you in your.

It is not about who threw the first coctail or fired a first shot.
It is about what were the Soviets doing in Czechoslovakia? What they went there?

And what they did there mate?
Did they massacre the czhechs kinda Yanks in Vietnam in the 1968?

This thread my friend wasn't about Russians at all. Please check the title.
"The Poles on the fronts".
It is not about Russians.
And it is you who started this discussion, in this embarrassing way of argue.
Nobody said a word about Russians before you posted here.

Right mate - nobody said a world except you source that you linked
http://www.ww2.pl/
That tells a insulting things about my state IMO.
So do not confuse please us- who has begin first.

This sense of humour is much below my standards.
I ain't gonna answer that.

No problems.
I will no continie such humore.

You're trying to convince me that that production prevented Soviets from stealing more coal?

Stealing coal?
Nobody staled poilish coal mate.
Except the poles who have stealed the German Upper Silesia in 1945;)
After the evil Stialn has persisted in the 1945 conference of allies - to join the silesia ito the Poland.
Bastard he...right.

But who asked him to do so?

I suppose I know the answer coming from your database.
Good question mate?
Who ask him to do so.
May be the feeling of guilt befor poles?Or international slav solodarity?
Anyway he was a bas.....on yur mind.
Howeve this is a good question for me- if nobody of poles today do not even try to remeber about what stalin did good for poland?
The Coal of silesia was a basis for Polish post war industrial rise.

Nickdfresh

11-21-2007, 04:08 PM

Chevan

11-22-2007, 02:21 AM

Here's a couple of threads from another forum that show why, despite the illusion of numbers on paper, why it would have been ridiculous to expect for the French to mount a major offensive against Germany, they simply did not have the doctrine nor the trained army for it as the bulk of their "strength" on paper was comprised of reserves that needed retraining:

Nick i do understand nothing now;)
If the France had no "trained army and doctrine" why they has have deceived the Poles that they could beat the EGrmans?;)
i.e. you want to say thet France&Britain simply lie for the poles that they could attack the EGrmany and protect the Poland?
Or that poles were so stopid to believe UK/France?What is you point?
And why do you think that Germans Army was "good trained" in the 1939.
Untill the september 1939 they have no wide combatans and military experience ( like and the frenches and britains) so why the Germans WERE trained but Frances&Britains WERE not?
True in the 1941 after the victory inthe Europe the GErmans army was the best trained in entire world, but NOT in the 1939 when they just has began the war.
And as wrote the some of GErmans generals the Polish comany was not "pleasant walk" for them- the poles fight enought hard . And the GErmans was forced to use the ALL AVIATION AND Tanks in the Poland.
SO in fact the september of 1939 was the BEST moment of whole war to Attack the GErmans in the West.
But they did NOTHING, why?
Coz they "were not trained" - what a bulshit....:)
May be the Frenches were "better training" during the battle for france in 1940? Did it help them a much;)?

Nickdfresh

11-23-2007, 09:42 AM

Nick i do understand nothing now;)

No. I don't think you do, nor do I think you bothered to read the provided links. This is fine as I know they are very long and hard to translate unlike my crap posts. So I'll break-it-down for you...

While I do not totally agree with the gentleman whose posts on the pre-war French military thinking reveal an indepth knowledge of the situation, I do think he contributes enormously to dispelling simplistic notions regarding the perceived strength and disposition of the French military circa 1939-1940...

If the France had no "trained army and doctrine" why they has have deceived the Poles that they could beat the EGrmans?;)

Whom deceived whom? The French deceived both themselves and the Poles that they could defeat the German Army...

Also, I believe the French also were thinking that the million+ man Polish military, while hardly the most modern in the world, would hold out quite a bit longer than they did....

i.e. you want to say thet France&Britain simply lie for the poles that they could attack the EGrmany and protect the Poland?

In a sense, they didn't "lie." They in fact did attack Germany through the Saar. I agree it was a bit pitiful and far more could have been done. But the French doctrine of "Methodical Battle" did not effectively allow for a truly offensive mode until the Germans had already suffered heavy casualties...

Or that poles were so stopid to believe UK/France?What is you point?

What did the Poles actually believe? What was actually stated in the treaty? All I can find on the internet about this is rather unreliable, even unsourced making concrete or definitive statements on this pretty dubious.

The only definitive statement on record is French Commanding General Gamelin telling the Poles he would launch an attack on the Germans within three weeks (which he did, if it was half-hearted). History largely paints Gamelin a fool, while some paint him a victim of circumstance. I think the truth is somewhere in between, while some of Gamelin's statements and actions pre-and-during the war are inexcusable, the fact is he faced some very disadvantageous political realities regarding French manpower and the conscription laws that were written which effectively reduced the French army to one third its peacetime strength in the period from 1927 to the mid-1930s. Also, the Belgians changed their policies to neutrality in 1935, making French cooperation with them almost impossible and France newly vulnerable as the Maginot Line now had an open flank.

And the Polish Army was already collapsing at this point, very early on. Then of course, there was the second invasion by the USSR and its belligerent statements against the French and British, and their rather pro-Hitler attitudes as well, probably only contributed to the attitudes of waiting for a German attack during the "Phony War"...

And why do you think that Germans Army was "good trained" in the 1939.

Because they had a completely new approach to combined arms warfare that was vastly ahead of everyone else's, including the French "Methodical Battle" doctrine, which moved at a far slower pace than modern technology allowed. Even as panzers drove deeply towards the Channel coast, French commanders will still projecting German advances using infantry foot speed and were shocked to find how far they had driven with their panzers in a day..

Untill the september 1939 they have no wide combatans and military experience ( like and the frenches and britains) so why the Germans WERE trained but Frances&Britains WERE not?

They didn't? You mean the Germans hadn't fought in the Spanish Civil War? The Freicorp engagements? Or that the "Reichswehr" hadn't fought significant post war civil insurrections? And it's not about "experience," it's also about innovative thinking that the Germans adopted and the French, British, and the Americans largely ignored because their militaries could afford to not take risks and look to 1918 on how to win a battle.

Do I have to explain the German postwar history or the Versailles Treaty constraints to you? And how these actually forced the German military to adapt its thinking towards highly mobile warfare?

True in the 1941 after the victory inthe Europe the GErmans army was the best trained in entire world, but NOT in the 1939 when they just has began the war.

Why would the German wartime army be better trained in 1941 than it was in 1939? Because that's when they defeated large Soviet formations? I have no idea where this comes from since they were some of the worlds best trained soldiers and airmen in both time periods. In fact, the same concepts that made the Wehrmacht/SS/Luftwaffe almost unstoppable juggernauts in 1941 were all there in the late 1930s. You simply cannot separate the German military into two year distinct periods. They are in fact interrelated..

And as wrote the some of GErmans generals the Polish comany was not "pleasant walk" for them- the poles fight enought hard .

True enough. But it was still "lightening war" by the contemporary standard of victories set by even the successful Allied advances at the end of WWI. The Polish military was simply not prepared for the shock ans speed of the German advance and their adeptness at combined arms warfare, much like the French would soon be. It was the same shock the the Red Army would feel in 1941, though they French would have to endure it without the benefit of time and space to reverse their errors...

And the GErmans was forced to use the ALL AVIATION AND Tanks in the Poland.
SO in fact the september of 1939 was the BEST moment of whole war to Attack the GErmans in the West.

Not "all" aviation was in Poland. The Luftwaffe still had significant assets in the West to guard against the RAF and French Air Force. And neither could touch the Luftwaffe in the use of tactical aviation to support ground forces...

But they did NOTHING, why?

But they didn't "do nothing." They quickly mobilised the French Army which was only about 206,000 men in late summer of 1939, to several million men - most of whom lacked training. Who was going to do it?

Coz they "were not trained" - what a bulshit....:)

Trained in what? They were reservists that hadn't done anything for years, often poorly led and without organization or equipment as of yet.

May be the Frenches were "better training" during the battle for france in 1940? Did it help them a much;)?

Actually, they had better training, but the wrong kind. The French Army was reorganizing and had never adequately answered what to do if the Germans didn't attack the Maginot Line, which was actually the French command's wet-dream, even if they knew it unlikely that the Germans were stupid enough to try a head on assault. This may well have slowed and contained a German panzer assault for long enough for the French to figure out that the generals favoring more mobile warfare, like Charles De Gaulle, than Methodical Battle allowed for were correct.

The seeds of the French Army's collapse was laid rather quickly, within the first 48 hours of the "Battle for France" when under trained and equipped reservists were caught holding the main point of German attack, unexpectedly, through the Ardennes Forest and the main French front line forces were caught in Belgium about to be cut off. But you see, the French thinking was entirely defensive in nature which was a direct result of their low birth rate and the existential dilemma of whether they could ever beat Germany in a long war without inflicting very heavy casualties on the Germans without suffering themselves in the initial phase of the war, which had to be defensive for this very reason. The fact that the French did have an opportunity not withstanding, they may not have been able to defeat the Germans even then. It is however an open question which will haunt them forever. But for all there failures of the French high command and political leaders of the 1920s and 30s, of which there are many, they cannot be blamed for the Invasion of Poland, whether they did enough or not. But they simply were not ABLE to do much for a whole host of reasons...

Of course, we can turn things on their head and ask why the great hero of the Soviet Union, the great man of steel: Marshall Stalin, didn't invade Germany or their occupied lands while the panzers were in France in 1940? :)

Yeah, that Pact really was in the Soviets best interests, wasn't it? :lol:

Nickdfresh

11-23-2007, 09:54 AM

Moving this thread to "General," since it now has little to do with the thread topic...

Chevan

12-01-2007, 02:06 PM

No. I don't think you do, nor do I think you bothered to read the provided links. This is fine as I know they are very long and hard to translate unlike my crap posts. So I'll break-it-down for you...

Thank for the care Nicki;)
OK lets discuss the things.

Whom deceived whom? The French deceived both themselves and the Poles that they could defeat the German Army...

So shortly speaking you want to say that France was not able to realise its military ability correct in the 1939?
But why they "suddenly' have realised that they could not defeat the GErmany Army right after the 1 september?
Why he suddenly decided not to attack the GErmans on your mind?

Also, I believe the French also were thinking that the million+ man Polish military, while hardly the most modern in the world, would hold out quite a bit longer than they did....

But they HOLD the GErmans whole 17 days.
So this was enough time at least to began the any combatan actions in the West.

In a sense, they didn't "lie." They in fact did attack Germany through the Saar. I agree it was a bit pitiful and far more could have been done. But the French doctrine of "Methodical Battle" did not effectively allow for a truly offensive mode until the Germans had already suffered heavy casualties...
Well but the attack through Saar look like the kiddish play in comparition with the Battles in the Poland.
And why did they forget to notice the poles before the 1 sep that "their doctrine of the Methodical battle" do not let them to execute the French-Polish treaty?

What did the Poles actually believe? What was actually stated in the treaty?

The beginning of the union UK/France military action was stated in the treaty.

All I can find on the internet about this is rather unreliable, even unsourced making concrete or definitive statements on this pretty dubious.

Well actually the some of secret additions to the agreements are hard to find today.
But i think this is naive to think that the Poles was not promised nothing concrete.

And the Polish Army was already collapsing at this point, very early on. Then of course, there was the second invasion by the USSR and its belligerent statements against the French and British, and their rather pro-Hitler attitudes as well, probably only contributed to the attitudes of waiting for a German attack during the "Phony War"...

Oh this is something new;)
what a pro-Hitler attitied of Frnace and britain do you mean during the Phony war?
That were in Anti-German treaty with Poland, right?
Do you meant they simply sold the Poland for Hitler as well as Chehoslovakia year before?

Because they had a completely new approach to combined arms warfare that was vastly ahead of everyone else's, including the French "Methodical Battle" doctrine, which moved at a far slower pace than modern technology allowed. Even as panzers drove deeply towards the Channel coast, French commanders will still projecting German advances using infantry foot speed and were shocked to find how far they had driven with their panzers in a day..

Yes the GErman Blitzkrieg tactic was superioir for its time.
However thay have to send to the poland ALL OF their tanks and Aviation. SO in the MAgino line they could not trat for the Frences by the contr-offensive, right.

They didn't? You mean the Germans hadn't fought in the Spanish Civil War? The Freicorp engagements? Or that the "Reichswehr" hadn't fought significant post war civil insurrections? And it's not about "experience," it's also about innovative thinking that the Germans adopted and the French, British, and the Americans largely ignored because their militaries could afford to not take risks and look to 1918 on how to win a battle.

Well Nick i/m seriously doubt that the participation in Spanish Civil war the German Legion Condor was the seriose support for preparation Entire GErman Army( the total participation of GErman troops in Span was no more 19 000 of mans for all 3 years)
I doubt this could train the GErman army.
Besides do not forget tht in Respublican side there were a lot of voli\untaries form France, Poland and other states.
So i think the OVERAL Germn combat experience was no more the UK/Frence befor 1 sept of 1939.

Do I have to explain the German postwar history or the Versailles Treaty constraints to you? And how these actually forced the German military to adapt its thinking towards highly mobile warfare?

The thinking is a just thinking.
Can yo believe if i say yothat the soviet commander of Army Tuhachevskij planned in 1937-38 to crach the GErmans army for the short time and the small blood in the territory of GErmany using the newest speedy soviet tanks and aviation armades.
And his thinking was really highly outstanding for his time.
Did it help the Army in the 1940 in Finland?

Why would the German wartime army be better trained in 1941 than it was in 1939? Because that's when they defeated large Soviet formations? I have no idea where this comes from since they were some of the worlds best trained soldiers and airmen in both time periods. In fact, the same concepts that made the Wehrmacht/SS/Luftwaffe almost unstoppable juggernauts in 1941 were all there in the late 1930s. You simply cannot separate the German military into two year distinct periods. They are in fact interrelated..

In the 1941 the GErman army had a great succesfull full scale experience inthe Europe after the 2 year continious compain.
During the two years thy developed and buffed its Blitzkrige tactic that was still no so perfect in Poland in 1939.
Therefore in the summer the GErman army was the best that world ever seen befor.

Not "all" aviation was in Poland. The Luftwaffe still had significant assets in the West to guard against the RAF and French Air Force. And neither could touch the Luftwaffe in the use of tactical aviation to support ground forces...

What do you mean the significan asset?
The few GErmans aircraft in the West could support a much?
Or may be the Luftwaffe from Poland could attack the Frenches?
Anyway Nick you simply ignore that fact that France had a absolute superiority in aircraft in the West at that time.
Besides do not forget about British aviation that could support the France in actions agains GErmany...If they really took the place;)

But they didn't "do nothing." They quickly mobilised the French Army which was only about 206,000 men in late summer of 1939, to several million men - most of whom lacked training. Who was going to do it?

So in this way the right question is "What for" they do it?
Had they mobilazed its army in aim to attack the GErmany - or for the sake of appearance?;)

Trained in what? They were reservists that hadn't done anything for years, often poorly led and without organization or equipment as of yet.

Oh Nick, you really a bit of naive.
Was the 1.5 million of GErmans army that invided the Poland the whole bunch of super-Rembo that could hit the Polish aircraft by the single shoot of bow?;)
Were they most of them not the simular reservists , former workers and peasants, who had no any poor training and was poorly armed?
well almost forget ( the GErmans captured the Whole arsenal of Chehoslovakia- so they have very enough wearpon in the 1939;)

Of course, we can turn things on their head and ask why the great hero of the Soviet Union, the great man of steel: Marshall Stalin, didn't invade Germany or their occupied lands while the panzers were in France in 1940? :)

Good question.
But why Marshal Stalin should save the Europe - if nobody asked him about ?
Or maybe somebody wished to sign the treaty with USSR befor the war?
Ah ,Nicki?
Or may be the Britain signed the treaty with Stalin in the 1939?No?
Nobody want have deels with "dirty Stalin" - so why he should save the Europe?
Beside they now were so lucky now under Nazy "new Order" that immediatelly has began the jewish pogroms and killing of communists;)
Whom was he needed to save?The pro-nazy regimes who dreamed to destroy the "evil Communism" together with Further?

Yeah, that Pact really was in the Soviets best interests, wasn't it? :lol:
That thought is even deeper that your irony ;)

Egorka

12-01-2007, 04:14 PM

Guys,

Regarding the France/England and Poland in 1939.

Look what I found. Please read this post on the Armchair General forum and also see the following posts. (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=804402&postcount=20)
It is quite interesting if it is true that Poland knew in advance from MAy 1939 that in case of German attack it will be sacrifised by the Fr/UK. I find it difficualt to beleive though (that Polaish gov. knew that).

Nickdfresh

12-03-2007, 06:20 PM

Thank for the care Nicki;)
OK lets discuss the things.

So shortly speaking you want to say that France was not able to realise its military ability correct in the 1939?
But why they "suddenly' have realised that they could not defeat the GErmany Army right after the 1 september?
Why he suddenly decided not to attack the GErmans on your mind?

But they HOLD the GErmans whole 17 days.
So this was enough time at least to began the any combatan actions in the West.

Well but the attack through Saar look like the kiddish play in comparition with the Battles in the Poland.
And why did they forget to notice the poles before the 1 sep that "their doctrine of the Methodical battle" do not let them to execute the French-Polish treaty?

The beginning of the union UK/France military action was stated in the treaty.

Well actually the some of secret additions to the agreements are hard to find today.
But i think this is naive to think that the Poles was not promised nothing concrete.

Oh this is something new;)
what a pro-Hitler attitied of Frnace and britain do you mean during the Phony war?
That were in Anti-German treaty with Poland, right?
Do you meant they simply sold the Poland for Hitler as well as Chehoslovakia year before?

Yes the GErman Blitzkrieg tactic was superioir for its time.
However thay have to send to the poland ALL OF their tanks and Aviation. SO in the MAgino line they could not trat for the Frences by the contr-offensive, right.

Well Nick i/m seriously doubt that the participation in Spanish Civil war the German Legion Condor was the seriose support for preparation Entire GErman Army( the total participation of GErman troops in Span was no more 19 000 of mans for all 3 years)
I doubt this could train the GErman army.
Besides do not forget tht in Respublican side there were a lot of voli\untaries form France, Poland and other states.
So i think the OVERAL Germn combat experience was no more the UK/Frence befor 1 sept of 1939.

The thinking is a just thinking.
Can yo believe if i say yothat the soviet commander of Army Tuhachevskij planned in 1937-38 to crach the GErmans army for the short time and the small blood in the territory of GErmany using the newest speedy soviet tanks and aviation armades.
And his thinking was really highly outstanding for his time.
Did it help the Army in the 1940 in Finland?

In the 1941 the GErman army had a great succesfull full scale experience inthe Europe after the 2 year continious compain.
During the two years thy developed and buffed its Blitzkrige tactic that was still no so perfect in Poland in 1939.
Therefore in the summer the GErman army was the best that world ever seen befor.

What do you mean the significan asset?
The few GErmans aircraft in the West could support a much?
Or may be the Luftwaffe from Poland could attack the Frenches?
Anyway Nick you simply ignore that fact that France had a absolute superiority in aircraft in the West at that time.
Besides do not forget about British aviation that could support the France in actions agains GErmany...If they really took the place;)

So in this way the right question is "What for" they do it?
Had they mobilazed its army in aim to attack the GErmany - or for the sake of appearance?;)

Oh Nick, you really a bit of naive.
Was the 1.5 million of GErmans army that invided the Poland the whole bunch of super-Rembo that could hit the Polish aircraft by the single shoot of bow?;)
Were they most of them not the simular reservists , former workers and peasants, who had no any poor training and was poorly armed?
well almost forget ( the GErmans captured the Whole arsenal of Chehoslovakia- so they have very enough wearpon in the 1939;)

Good question.
But why Marshal Stalin should save the Europe - if nobody asked him about ?
Or maybe somebody wished to sign the treaty with USSR befor the war?
Ah ,Nicki?
Or may be the Britain signed the treaty with Stalin in the 1939?No?
Nobody want have deels with "dirty Stalin" - so why he should save the Europe?
Beside they now were so lucky now under Nazy "new Order" that immediatelly has began the jewish pogroms and killing of communists;)
Whom was he needed to save?The pro-nazy regimes who dreamed to destroy the "evil Communism" together with Further?

That thought is even deeper that your irony ;)

Again, read the links! The Poles knew there was nothing the Allies were going to do because it was too impracticable. And the French were not going to attack in 1939, nor 1940. The Allies were waiting until they had strategic advantage to start any offensive operations in 1941. The French doctrine didn't allow for anything else, and as it is, the French went to war knowingly with a vastly weaker air force than the German's Luftwaffe.